<p>just found this link... <a href="http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?rssFeed=news&id=26541&seenIt=1%5B/url%5D">http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?rssFeed=news&id=26541&seenIt=1</a></p>
<p>what do you guys think of it?</p>
<p>molecular engineering is "engineering" only in title, much like "social engineering" or "genetic engineering" so I don't see what the big deal is.</p>
<p>Zimmer does seem to be rather a loose cannon. It will be interesting to see how these things go.</p>
<p>Actually, he seems anything but a loose cannon. He's very corporate in his approach and mainstream in his goals. He also knows the faculty politics and composition really well, and how to line up his ducks (as he certainly has on the MBE idea).</p>
<p>I think among the students, and maybe among the alumni, there's a certain love of difference for difference's sake. That definitely adds charm to the university, but it shouldn't make the university the institutional equivalent of a Luddite. Ultimately, Chicago wants and needs to be a first-rank research university, and there's a good case that you can't be that without an MBE program any more than you could be that without an economics program.</p>
<p>"there's a good case that you can't be that without an MBE program any more than you could be that without an economics program."</p>
<p>Oh really?</p>
<p>The fact is that the kind of research that might be done in such a department is already done at the university, as well as many other places. It just does not have a catchy title. It reminds me of the early days of molecular biology. A lot of us did it. We just did not call it that. We called it micro or biochem or virology. </p>
<p>So sorry, I just don't see how rebranding some ongoing activities, expanding it to department level etc. would make a heck of a difference.</p>
<p>"Chicago wants and needs to be a first-rank research universit"'??? Hello? AS if it's not considered one now?????</p>
<p>melonparkmom, why do you always come across so annoying? Your replies and posts usually have a rather unpleasant tone to them. If this was a discussion in person, I think a few other "moms" would have already slapped you around a few times....Tone it down woman... you are mother, DUDE!</p>
<p>...serchingon, I would imagine that you're the one that needs to tone it down...granted, menloparkmom's excessive question marks are slightly irritating in this case, but it's an informal forum and she does have a point.</p>
<p>irritating? I thought the response was great. </p>
<p>Please, serchingon, where is your sense of humor? And her reply was spot on.</p>
<p>If anyone should be reacting here, it should be JHS.</p>
<p>Thanks! I didn't mean to offend, I was just so taken aback that someone would think Chicago is not CURRENTLY considered a first rate research university, which is NOT the case in the academic community.</p>
<p>I am trying to learn from JHS. He is pretty good about ignoring nasty remarks from here. But menloparkmom is ALWAYS answering with the same irritating TONE. I just felt like pointing THAT out. Another example follows:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do some basic research about what Chicago is like as an undergraduate institution, because it is NOT your typical college, then ask questions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>After reading a few of comments like that , my sense of humor begins to SUFFER. Do you GET what I MEAN??!!!.</p>
<p>And instead on posting here regarding the subject of this thread, you seem to want to pick fights or ask others to agree with your "read" on my "tone". Bottom line, if you don't like my "tone", don't read my posts. Simple as that. Goodnight.</p>
<p>The article linked in the original post seems to indicate that Zimmer sees the establishment of a molecular engineering department as the first step in developing a larger engineering program. If that is the case, then this initiative is not simply a matter of renaming some of the research already under way. It is, rather, an important step in broadening the appeal of the undergraduate program.</p>
<p>The comments by the chair of the computer science department as quoted in the article were very interesting. I heard him speak at 'accepted student days' last spring. He was unusually forthright when questioned about the reputation of the computer science program; he understood fully the difficulty of attracting students to a program that offers limited opportunity for applied research. </p>
<p>I agree with JHS' Luddite comment. A university is either a great research university or it isn't. There is too much interaction among the sciences now to avoid everything labeled "engineering". </p>
<p>Just my opinion, as an outsider. My son was headed for UChicago last year, but at the last moment backed out because he worried about the lack of applied research opportunities for computer science students. He loved everything else about the school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It reminds me of the early days of molecular biology. A lot of us did it. We just did not call it that. We called it micro or biochem or virology.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, yes, molecular biology grew out of biochemistry departments. Biochemistry departments grew out of chemistry departments. Chemistry departments grew out of physical sciences departments. As new science fields evolve, so too does the need to provide physical space to collect together the people and equipment working in the new fields. It is one aspect of progress.</p>
<p>There are many great universities that do not have formal engineering programs. And there are a good number of great universities that have crappy engineering programs, too.</p>
<p>Establishing new programs is not a low cost activity. And given that U. Chicago is not as strong financially as some of its academic competitors, I for one hope Zimmer does not direct too many resources at programs that are expensive to execute, like establishing a broad based engineering program. But I doubt that is his intent. The term "engineering" can be hung on a number of disciplines that are ultimately rather basic science (like "molecular engineering"!)</p>
<p>Before anyone becomes to gung ho regarding tradional engineering, I suggest you read the actual UofC report: <a href="http://provost.uchicago.edu/pdfs/MolecularEngineeringReport.Final.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://provost.uchicago.edu/pdfs/MolecularEngineeringReport.Final.pdf</a></p>
<p>If you read the report, you would see there is nothing in this proposal that suggests anything remotely like a traditional engineering program. I suspect the Chicago business article author did not read the whole report but just took off from the headline.</p>
<p>Popping back in here to make clear that I wasn't offended at all by menloparkmom's comment. I just assumed that she read my post quickly and misinterpreted it as questioning Chicago's status. (Hint: I'm a fan.) We all get things a little wrong sometimes.</p>
<p>As for the main point, I don't disagree with newmassdad much at all. I think the question whether you call what you have a Molecular Bioengineering Department or the Committee on Practical Applications in Molecular Biology is sort of up the the University, its faculty and administration. That's the way Chicago seems to be approaching it, too. And we all agree that every university has to do a certain amount of keeping up with the Joneses in order to thrive. It's not as if Chicago has ever done anything really crass, like establishing a business school or law school . . . . (That was sarcasm.)</p>
<p>I am a neutral on Zimmer. I haven't hung on his every word. I get amused sometimes at the amplitude of the emotional reactions some of his positions have provoked: "He used the cursed word 'engineering'! He must want to turn this into a trade school!" "He wants to accept the Common Application! Even with an Uncommon Supplement, surely that will result in a flood of applications from people who would be better off at Northwestern or Dartmouth! Stop the pogrom against the geeks! We Are Uncommon!"</p>
<p>As I said before, Zimmer has spent practially his whole career at Chicago. He's wired in all over the place. I'm certain there is no issue on which the faculty and trustees are unanimous, but I haven't seen any evidence that Zimmer is more than a few centimeters from wherever the mainstream is for those two critical constituencies.</p>
<p>A typical ABET accredited engineering curriculum doesn't leave much room for liberal arts/electives. If molecular engineering is anything like bioengineering, then it's a multidisciplinary field and requires relatively large number of courses. I am not sure how the core can fit in. Chicago may have to waive the requirement for those students.</p>
<p>Waive the requirement for a select group of students? No, the University wouldn't do that. It's either the Core for everyone or the Core for no one. Perhaps the Core is Zimmer's next victim.</p>
<p>I think Columbia does something like that with its Fu students.... </p>
<p>I would be very unhappy to see the core waived for one set of students. It's a common educational denominator here, whether you're an econ major or a religious studies major. While I think this "engineering" program is worthwhile and will probably advance study in the field as well as attract strong students to it, I would be upset to see the school change to accommodate it.</p>
<p>P.S. I saw Zimmer walking down University Ave. the other day. You know when your mom tells you if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all? I crossed the street.</p>
<p>(My beef with Zim goes beyond his desire to change Chicago-- he's also encouraged some administrators to leave whom I really liked).</p>
<p>If "molecular engineering" really is just another name for genetic engineering/molecular biology, as another poster suggested, then it definitely does not require a standard ABET curriculum, and it can be done within the context of a well-defined core curriculum. On the other hand, if this is the first step towards establishing a wider engineering program, there could be difficulties.</p>
<p>Not all programs within engineering schools are ABET accredited. I believe computer science is treated differently within a number of schools of engineering and even at MIT. In other words, I don't think it would be necessarily detrimental to a molecular engineering program not to have ABET accreditation.</p>
<p>I was under the impression that molecular engineering would be entirely a graduate program.</p>